It is interesting that this complex DNA code left by the Intelligent Designer could not be discovered and "read" until evolutionary theory predicted the existence of DNA. And DNA shows no connection whatsoever to Christianity or any other religion. What the eff is up with that? So the Intelligent Designer could stay hidden a while longer?

It is almost as if the Intelligent Designer, who left all those fossils for scientists to find, also wanted there to be a curious Charles Darwin, a Beagle voyage through the tropics, a theory of evolution and the subsequent field of genetics. So scientists could eventually find that secret code hidden in the DNA by the mysterious Intelligent Designer.[1]

Done so. But you rejected all my explanations and links. Its your turn now to make your case.

No, you haven't done so. All you've done is regurgitate snippets from other sites that you thought supported your case. All that accomplished was to make it evident that you were looking only for evidence which supported your existing belief. That's not how you discover things. You have to base your conclusions on all of the evidence available to you, and if you find evidence which contradicts what you think is true, then you need to take it into account, which means that what you think is true probably isn't.

Plus, you showed that you weren't really interested in anything I might have to say when you declined to debate me one-on-one. Indeed, you've shown that same disregard for what other people think all along. All that matters to you is what you believe, and 'proving' that you're right. People have been trying to prove their beliefs that way for thousands of years, and it hasn't worked once; someone else can always come up with their own belief, and then you have positions that can't be reconciled.

That's why science is so valuable - because if you go where the evidence leads, and don't insist that things you already believed must be true, you can avoid getting stuck in that trap of self-deception.

To get back to the point, I'm okay with referring to DNA as language-like, and as code-like, because that terminology is useful for communicating with other people. But if you want to show that it is an actual language/code, used for meaningful communication between intelligent entities, then you have to provide evidence of that. Not simply point to human references to it as a language or a code, because that's just semantics.

If one googles DNA and code, one gets hundreds of responses on both sides of the aisle about whether DNA is a code or not.

If it does qualify as a code, that doesn't prove it had an external source. Nor does DNA not being a code prove that no intelligent design was involved.

But stupid humans can turn DNA into something that is definitely code and when we do, one gram of the stuff can be used to hold 700 terabytes of data. That's 14,000 Blue-ray movies.

Note that it doesn't even have to be alive to do this. In fact, it would be dead and still stable for thousand of years, much more so than any currently available storage technology. So it is the structure, not the life that makes this possible.

But also note that using fullerenes, a two dimensional carbon based, man-made material, we may be able to store more in less space. Which would make us smarter than our so-called "intelligent designer". If fullerenes are more efficient, why weren't humans made out of one atom thick carbon? We would have worked fine. Though wind may have been problematic.

This discussion is going nowhere because both sides can find support for their POV. At least for the coding part. And of course Godexists has no trouble going to a few ID sites and finding folks who insist that the code proves that an intelligent designer (ironically, code for "god") is behind it all.

We don't have enough information yet. People one both sides are drawing very different conclusions. We'll ignore for a minute that one side is huge (science) and the other side is tiny (ID). There are two points of view. (And I'm talking the number of scientists on each side, not the number of religious adherents vs. atheists.)

Anyway, this particular line of thought is going nowhere. As one who is mostly reading the exchanges, I would appreciate it if you guys could find something more exciting to disagree about. Getting back to organelles or something else at the cellular level would offer new opportunities for name calling and such, which is apparently why we're all here anyway.

He's sort of like FAUX NOISE and/or a politician who takes what their opponent or those that disagree with them; what they say out of context to use against them. Here he goes to actual articles, takes specific lines that agree with his point-of-view, discards the rest and then says, "See, I used lines from the people who you admire and worship, and they agree with me!"

If one googles DNA and code, one gets hundreds of responses on both sides of the aisle about whether DNA is a code or not.

If it does qualify as a code, that doesn't prove it had an external source. Nor does DNA not being a code prove that no intelligent design was involved.

But stupid humans can turn DNA into something that is definitely code and when we do, one gram of the stuff can be used to hold 700 terabytes of data. That's 14,000 Blue-ray movies.

Note that it doesn't even have to be alive to do this. In fact, it would be dead and still stable for thousand of years, much more so than any currently available storage technology. So it is the structure, not the life that makes this possible.

It seems you don't know how to differentiate between software and hardware. Can you ?

Here he goes to actual articles, takes specific lines that agree with his point-of-view, discards the rest and then says, "See, I used lines from the people who you admire and worship, and they agree with me!"

As if we are too stupid to notice.

Sucks for him, since I don't admire any person enough to accept what they say as being true, especially if it goes against the evidence. I'm sure some (most?) of you guys feel the same way.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

If one googles DNA and code, one gets hundreds of responses on both sides of the aisle about whether DNA is a code or not.

If it does qualify as a code, that doesn't prove it had an external source. Nor does DNA not being a code prove that no intelligent design was involved.

But stupid humans can turn DNA into something that is definitely code and when we do, one gram of the stuff can be used to hold 700 terabytes of data. That's 14,000 Blue-ray movies.

Note that it doesn't even have to be alive to do this. In fact, it would be dead and still stable for thousand of years, much more so than any currently available storage technology. So it is the structure, not the life that makes this possible.

It seems you don't know how to differentiate between software and hardware. Can you ?

I'm having a difficult time understanding how you concluded that ParkingPlaces cannot differentiate between software and hardware based upon his post. Could you explain what makes you think he is unable to differentiate between the two?

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

My question was : How do you know that DNA chemical bonds do produce amino acids.Quit playing word games. A base triplet from a DNA strand, also known as a codon, produces an amino acid when transcribed by RNA. That means that DNA effectively produces amino acids, which then form proteins.

I gave you the chance to find out and correct yourself, but it seems you did not even bother to google. Of course, what you wrote , is utter bollocks. What it forms, are peptide chains.

The production of amino acids is extremely complex , and envolves many enzymatic catalytic pathways and processes inside the cell. I am studying it , but far from understanding the complex chemical processes , which are in the most part btw. irreducible complex. The enzymatic proteins, which produce the amino acids, are themself made of amino acids........So if cell is not all assembled at once, no amino acids, no dna, no rna, no proteins, no life.

Here he goes to actual articles, takes specific lines that agree with his point-of-view, discards the rest and then says, "See, I used lines from the people who you admire and worship, and they agree with me!"

As if we are too stupid to notice.

Sucks for him, since I don't admire any person enough to accept what they say as being true, especially if it goes against the evidence. I'm sure some (most?) of you guys feel the same way.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?We choose our own gods.